58 / 98
Aug 2022

The reason why it is happening is what I just stated

I remember when Hasbro tried to rerelease the original My Little Ponys and most of the people buying them were adults who were nostalgic. Kids preferred the newer toys instead that were tied into the show. Similar when Mattel tries to re-release old Barbies, it's not for the kids. And similar with the new Bratz dolls, which I wonder if most of the people buying them are collectors and people who are nostalgic. And He-Man is similar. Adults who grew up with He-Man of course want new stuff but I feel like He-Man in it's original form would turn off most kids now a days.

And there is such a thing as franchises that just die. I think of stuff like Lamb Chop being reduced to dog toys or Howdy Doody, despite being extremely popular in its day, is super obscure now.

One of the sucky things about shoehorning, in Marvel's case, is scheduling conflicts which end up being inevitable.

Fun fact about America Chavez; she was supposed to be a main plot point for Spider-Man: No Way Home. She was never meant to be in Multiverse of Madness. Which makes sense because she felt like a huge after thought in the latter movie. In fact, I really don't think Raimi was aware of her existence when making the movie which was crazy to me.

So now I'm wondering if this is going to be a problem for other films in the future. It's like "Oh shoot, we have this character planned... we REALLY need to introduce them because contract reasons, but they can't show up..... uhhhhhhhhhhh PUT THEM IN THIS FILM QUICK!".

Btw little off-topic, who names their Mexican kid America? And I wanna know if she wore those clothes as a kid because I know for a fact she'll get bullied for that alone. Countries like Mexico and Brazil hate it when you call the United States "America", so having those colors on your back is a double whammy. I don't think the creators thought this character through...

What I remember hearing about Phase 4 was that it wasn't supposed to be this much of an unfocused mess. It was supposed to be as focused as Phases 1-3.

Apparently - and this may just be a rumour - Kevin Feige was stepping away from hands-on management due to the increasing workload, and his successor for planning and running Phase 4 and onwards was James Gunn...who then got fired right before the planning work was going to start. So, Feige still had too much work to be involved in planning a coherent Stage 4, and it fell to a bunch of lower producers who were...I guess you could say...not as well organized...

That's what I heard, anyway. It sounds like it makes a lot of sense when it comes to explaining the drastic changes between the three.

(Seriously, if this was 5 years ago, I would have been holding Marvel up as the perfect example of how to do all of this right. They caught lightning in a bottle and figured out how to market it properly for YEARS. And then...well, Phase 4 happened.)

I feel like Marvel will bounce back up. This type of stuff was bound to happen. Fegie plans on taking a retreat so he can plan the universe out further. He also has to deal with Sony which must be a pain. I don't think this is as crazy as people make it out to be. After all, his franchise became a success, he just needs to figure out how to control things on a bigger scale, which is a like a new challenge for him.

Take the Sony situation for example. Avi Arad thought Fegie was CRAZY for wanting to do something with the MCU. In fact they didn't buy the Marvel characters for a cheap price back then because, and I quote, "Nobody gives a sh** about them". Now that they see Spider-Man thriving, they want a piece of that pie and Fegie has to force himself to make sure their movies workout like Madame Webb.

I WILL say tho, we'll probably have some casualties along the way before Kevin figures things out. For example; Moon Knight not even being close to what he was in the comics (probably the most inaccurate character in the MCU), She-Hulk (the writers openly admitting they don't know how to write a lawyer drama BEFORE the show releases), the Eternals (Chloe Zhao... that's all), and whatever Taika touches.

I liked that my friend was like "Was he trying to get fired with Thor: Love and Thunder?!?".

I loved Black Widow tho. Black Widow gets too much hate. Natasha, Yelena, Red Guardian, and Iron Maiden were so cute as a family.

Honestly, the weirdest thing I saw with Marvel marketing was this thing with the toys about five years ago. I think it was Hasbro who had the license, and they were removing female characters from basically everything. It was BIZARRE. And the justification that I recall was something along the lines of "the kids who play with these are boys, and they won't want to see toys that they can't see themselves in"...which was utter nonsense, and made me think that the people involved either had never met a kid or been one themselves.

(And I'm old enough to remember the Star Wars toy boom that made Lucasfilm what it was back in the 1980s - there was a new toy for every single on-screen character after each costume change. Kenner and Lucasfilm made a fortune - this was a proven strategy.)

I thought they have a separate deal with girl toy companies like Barbie with their female characters? I mean, it doesn't make sense to do what you mentioned, but I do wonder if it's like an exclusive deal or something. Disney's weird like that.

I do remember something about that for Masters of the Universe and She Ra back in the late 80s...did that happen with Marvel as well?

I remember barbies being made for Captain Marvel and Black Widow when their films came out so.... most likely? But what about Marvel Legends? Because I saw figures for characters from those films as well (well Captain Marvel anyway).

We are now well past my point of knowing things...and I REALLY need to write this chapter. I'm going to go for a few hours...

I'm actually from a place where we get a lot of immigrants and I've met a couple of little girls named America while teaching! Can't remember if Mexican or Cuban cause it's not proper to ask those kind of questions but it seems to be a kind of "hope for the future" kind of thing where you name your kid after this place that you feel gives you more freedoms and hope for the future.

Tho I have zero idea what the idea behind naming her America was since she was from a utopia where only women exist so like I'm not even sure America would exist as a place or a word?!

But it's ok cause everything everywhere all at once was a much better mulitverse movie with real representation and an actual plot :slight_smile:

Mattel used to be Disney's main partner when it came to selling toys, especially the Disney Princesses. But due to a dispute, Disney ended up jumping ship and partnering with Hasbro instead. Around that time, Hasbro was having a lot of luck with their reboot of My Little Pony so it seemed like a good idea at the time. But recently, Disney has decided to go back to Mattel. And my guess is Mattel is going to try not to piss off Disney again.

But you may notice that the diversity is not the main selling point displayed in marketing.
They are not gonna conceal it, but series like Craig of the Creek or the Owl house's main marketing focus are the premise, worldbuilding and character dinamics, not the cast's skin color or sexual orientation.

Also, there are cases where the the diversity is promoted is done in a preachy and patronizing way, which alienates audiences that otherwise would be interested. Obviously not everyone does that, but cases like this exist. The case of High Guardian Spice is the perfect example of social media suicide.

Uh, maybe you are misremembering things but I definitely have heard people bring up the diversity of the show when promoting Craig of the Creek. Heck, here is an article from 2018 where they mention it and said they were motivated by the positive response to the diversity in Steven Universe.
https://www.animationmagazine.net/tv/craig-of-the-creek-kids-gone-wild/

There characters were also used in a Twitter post talking about different pronouns

There was also promotion for the ASL rep, even posting an isolated clip to their YouTube
https://www.animationmagazine.net/streaming/clip-craig-learns-asl-in-tonights-craig-of-the-creek/

And there is probably other stuff too but I don't follow CN on Twitter so this is what I just came across.

well.....kids are not supposed to be on twitter, which is an odd move on CN's part......

Maybe they are aiming at adults who watch kids shows with a periphery demographic?

Sometimes, I wish we could have a civil conversation without immediately resorting to calling each other racists/sexists/and other ists. I do agree with what some people said on here about separating how to market from accidentally shooting yourself in the foot with bad marketing by disrespecting your audience LOL (I think that should be a separate topic), but I do also think that people were way too quick to be accusing you of ists--or at least on the verge of it (no wonder the word has lost all meaning rolls eyes). Honestly, the psychology behind these companies is fascinating, though. I don't have a problem with lesbian romances, but I do think you are limiting your audience by purely marketing something as a lesbian romance. A very small percentage of the population is gay, and you might have trouble marketing it to the other, like, 99% of the population if you are trying to solely sell the show on that. That doesn't mean that population is homophobic--it just means they most likely won't have an interest in it. I also think those who are gay would be looking at the show and saying to themselves, "Okay. They are gay. What else?"

Even with a straight romance, you would probably market something additional to the romance aspect. For example, while Gone With the Wind is technically a romance, it's also a historical epic about civil war, which might draw in a male audience in addition to the female romance (in fact, it did, because it's one of the highest grossing films). Similarly, Titanic, while a romance, is also historical and the male audience knows there's going to be a giant iceberg in the latter half, so they might tune in. XD

I mean, imagine if someone came up to you in real life and only told you their sexuality/race but nothing else. You would probably be like... "I dunno where to take this conversation." Tell me more specific things about your characters if you want me to get interested (e.g., hobbies, job, struggles, is their romantic life going up in flames? What kind of world do they live in? How does their sexuality/race impact the story, or does it at all?)

Look I get where your coming from. But literally No one here accused any one of being racist, sexist or anything. Honestly reading through this whole thread it honestly alot more civil than expected, not sure what your on about.

As someone decided to dive into romance... usually the romance IS the marketing point in alot of straight romances. Like its usually "hot stud with cute book worm" ect. Not that there's anything wrong with that. And neither it is for queer romance we are small but we are still a big Audience. Marketing as unapologetically queer or poc does help for audiences who are actively searching for that content and that audience reads and pays for that kind of content more readily. And the titanic example may not be the best thing to say ""appeals to male viewers"" with the amount of male critiques constantly talking crap about it. And many cis men not bothering with it considering a "chick flick"

I rarely seen people go "read my stuff its has X represntation" and are part of the community.

Honestly I more see nowdays "this is forced down my throat" and it's like one kiss.

A small loyal and niche audience is still a profitable audience. If you cultivate and attract a usually neglected demography.

I think it's also important to know the platform you are publishing on. Like the discussion of how to market diversity changes a lot if you're putting out a book on Tapas vs another publisher. Tapas goes well out of it's way over the past several years to build an audience that is looking for LGTBQA+ diversity. This type of audience building may not be happening in other places you can post a novel (of which there are many, and each have a slightly different audience.)

So yeah, here on Tapas, using those tags and just saying "My story has LGBTQA diversity" may actually be enough because that group feels so underserved by other places. But if you only do that much somewhere else where the audience wants more of like fantasy or sci-fi it'll be like...yes? And? Because honestly, who amongst us has never written a gay character? None, right? It's in a lot of books right now, it truly is, although sometimes it does take a microscope to see it. But if that's what you are looking for, primarily, then you know how to search for it.

And there is a concept in marketing where you want to know the pain points of your audience (which I didn't invent calling it "pain points" and I wish it had a different name, but that's the name I've heard). You want to know what they desperately wish for, what causes them pain, and how you can fix it with whatever your story is. I think a lot of Tapas creators do know about the pain point of a vacuum of main characters in media who are proper representation. But that vacuum doesn't exist everywhere because not every audience has the same pain points.

So know your audience, and know that for every platform, the pain points will probably be different, and your blurb and how you market for them will probably have to be adjusted.

But what do you say to something like Heartstopper who's only selling point was it was a gay love story. There wasn't any add about plots and I don't think many even mentioned it being British but it was a huge hit because I think there is a large audience who is starving for that kind of content but are being told by executives that "no one wants that" or "there is no audience".

Similar with Our Flag Means Death. The selling point was "they are pirate and they are gay". Like if you only sold the show as a "goofy pirate show" I think people who weren't expecting the gay romance might be a bit shocked or maybe feel a bit mislead (depending on who it is).

I don't really agree that you need to be secretive about LGBTQ people being in a story if that is the whole premise of the show.

I even looked up a trailer on First Kill, the show that OP mentioned. They do clearly state there are vampires in the show along with hinting at the romance. And there was clearly an audience who loved the show and were heartbroken when it was cancelled. I don't think the show was cancelled because no one was watching, I think it was more that Netflix is a shitty company that doesn't really know how to handle their IPs. EDIT: I was not aware they cancelled the show literally two months after it premiered, WTF.